The 72 Hour Rule

and the more than a week rule

I’ll mostly be on the road today, on a long drive that will deposit me back in the progressive paradise of Los Angeles, but the discussion about the Trump administration’s military strike on Iran’s nuclear program already strikes me as an illustration of all the usual rules of stupid political discourse. My starting point is that the US has engaged in fifty years of intervention in the Middle East, and most of those interventions have been unsuccessful or counterproductive, so I don’t show up to the discussion feeling enthused by the attack. However:

First, wait a while. Sean Hannity just announced that “a source” told him the attack was a complete success, and all of Iran’s nuclear sites were fully destroyed. I’d hesitate to believe that, is the gentle way to put it. I’d also hesitate to believe the stories being told from the other direction, and don’t forget that Trump’s attack on Qasem Soleimani produced a full week of OH NO WORLD WAR III JUST BEGAN stories in the establishment media. The likelihood is that none of what you’re hearing this week is fully true. Wait and watch. I hope that Iran and the US are backchanneling while engaging in belligerent public posturing, but by definition we’re not going to see the backchanneling. We’ll see. The 72 Hour Rule is in effect, here, at the very least.

Second, the ludicrous story in which Trump is violating law and political norms with unilateral military action is, as always, a deliberate performance of political amnesia. These are our political norms, for crying out loud.

We should probably fix that. But the people who tolerated an American war in Libya without direct congressional authorization, and who tolerated an American war in Yemen without direct congressional authorization, and who tolerated an American war in Syria without direct congressional authorization, aren’t actually going to impeach a president over military strikes in the Middle East undertaken without direct congressional authorization. It’s a show. The More Than a Week Rule requires us to view this action in the longer and generally quite unfortunate context of American foreign policy, and the politicians who are outraged by unilateral military action in the Middle East have zero standing on that score.

Third, and related, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force is still in effect, and still being stretched and massaged beyond its intent and meaning, but note that Congress still hasn’t repealed it. A Congress that wished to restrain presidential military action in the Middle East would probably start there, and they haven’t.

Fourth, this framing….

….disregards Trump’s recent tour of Arab nations, where he was greeted rapturously:

A nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to its Arab neighbors, as well as to Israel, and my bet would be that this action was discussed and welcomed all over the Middle East. As a first guess, I suspect that many discussions are going on around the Gulf that we don’t know about.

And finally, don’t miss that Democrats are outraged by the strike on Iran, but were outraged ten minutes ago that Orange Man was bending the knee to Iran because Iran is a Russian client state and Orange Man Luvz Putin. Click the link to play the stupid video, but note the date:

Similarly, and with the most enjoyable timing ever, the dumbest publication in America warned on June 21st that Iran was playing Trump, a weak and cowardly capitulator who doesn’t have the BALLS to attack.

So the story is it stands is that HOW DARE TRUMP NOT ATTACK IRA— I MEAN, HOW DARE TRUMP ATTACK IRAN.

Much noise. I’m skeptical, but waiting. War and truth don’t generally travel together.